Lastly, we arrive at the most effective mechanism used to introduce Libertarianism to people: reality. Contrary to what Democracy does, we do not use our own heroes as subliminal empathy tools or messages. We stick to reality.

About accomplishments

When we introduce Libertarianism, we do so through the expedient means of pointing out what has been accomplished in the past in a Libertarian-like environment. These accomplishments never come accompanied by remarks such as "…in Libertarianism" or "…only possible in Libertarianims" or "through the Libertarian process" which are typical slogans of Democratic processes. Our accomplishments are typically private-enterprise driven top-to-bottom (no government required). We do point out (as Democracies do) that without freedom, this would not have taken place. But we also point out that Libertarianism is indeed a step forward providing more freedom than its predecessor and as such a better enabler than Democracy.

What we also do is to clarify that almost everything that has been accomplished over centuries was mostly done by private citizens. Yes, some governments accomplished some things by themselves (notably communism) but almost all other accomplishments were almost always dependent upon private enterprise. Governments supplied the money (through the unholy trinity -tax, borrow and print-) but all the actual work was done by enterprising people. As such whether or not governments should have supplied the funds is the source of endless debates. Our point of view is simple: they should not have because in so doing they interfered with free markets which means that they delayed or even stopped higher standards of living.

They present Democracy as the only source of success while we do not do so. We fully acknowledge that Libertarianism is simply an enabling system which releases the full potential of enterprising people. Libertarianism in and by itself does nothing to or for the free market. Basically, we let the free market be thus increasing everybody's standards of living.

We can prove that during Libertarian-like times in the past, standards of living raised faster, consistently and sustainable. We can do so statistically and therefore objectively (as much as statistics can be considered "objective). Furthermore, we can prove and we have done so that modern Democracies are nothing more than socialist (or even communist) systems which consistently stagnate standards of living, and however little has been accomplished it was done in a non-sustainable fashion (for example see our ESSI, ESSII, GFSS and ISI indices).

We don’t shy away from critics but analyze the information thoroughly. Most of the time we find flaws in their thinking and measurements, however, we are the first ones to acknowledge that Libertarianism is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and as such it will have issues and problems and will be in error. That is not the point and has never been the point. The point is that Libertarianism is a better system than Democracy, generally speaking. This means that yes, there will be niches where Democracy will be better but the price to be paid for such specific benefits is simply too large. Overall Libertarianism is far cheaper, effective and efficient than Democracy. Basically, we do not deny anything. We are not in the business of denying anything as politicians are.

And this is our biggest weakness and strength. We do not do marketing, we simply advertise the truth. We do not try to make people our accomplices through acts of faith since we encourage them to think. We do not argue Libertarianism as a religion and therefore any opposing doubt is not rejected as an act of faith but it is to be examined in search for the truth.

RELIGION

Now that we have postulated (proposed) that Libertarianism is not being introduced to people as a religion and therefore an act of faith, we need to prove this. We will do so in two parts. The first part will demonstrate that it is possible to argue that Libertarianism is a religion. The second part will demonstrate that we chose not to do so.

Part #1 - Libertarianism is not objective

Libertarianism being a Political Theory and a Political System is not something objective but a subjective process. We have demonstrated that much in our article Political Theories and Systems - What They Are And How They Work where we compare Political Theories (subjective) versus Scientific Theories (objective). There are vast differences among them.

The fact that Political Theories are subjective opens the door to the possibility to argue Libertarianism as a Religion. This is so because if Political Theories (and therefore Libertarianism) would be objective, we would be able to demonstrate through pure deductive reasoning any article of faith. This is the same as trying to demonstrate the existence of God in any religion. The reality is that we cannot. Philosophers and religious scholars have tried for millennia; tried and failed. They have even tried rhetoric (or inductive reasoning) and also failed. Every attempt ended in opposing conclusions; in our example this would mean that there are equally strong arguments for the existence of God as well as for its non-existence. No ultimate conclusion can be obtained. The simple truth is that any form of religion is faith based and it cannot be developed objectively. For the same reasons, Libertarianism cannot be developed objectively but as Political Theory it is capable of basing itself on a maximum amount of deductive reasoning making it the best we have because it is as objective as we can get. Today. Tomorrow there will be something else. The point is that even though we could argue Libertarianism as a religion, we chose not to do so.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.